The fracas about Hillary Clinton as a million-dollar speaker is merely political maneuvering masquerading as legitimate criticism. Both the political left and right are enraged over news that Hillary Clinton accepted six-figure fees for talks she gave after leaving the Obama administration. Even worse than the amount of money she amassed, say her critics, are the sources of those speaking fees: Goldman Sachs GS -1.07% , GoldenTree Asset Management, and other tony Wall Street firms. Doesn’t this pose a grave conflict of interest to her presidential aspirations? Won’t she be partial to the financial sector if she is elected Commander in Chief? No, and not necessarily. Here’s why.
One Law to Rule Them All
Clinton was able to command $675,000 for three speeches at Goldman Sachs because the company wanted to hear what she had to say. A former elected official has “insight and perspective that others do not,” says Stacy Tetschner, CEO of the National Speakers Association. This knowledge, he adds, “is now that person’s intellectual property, and he or she has a right to share it.”
Besides, Clinton had already left office by that point, so she wasn’t in violation of ethics laws that prohibit government officials from being paid to speak.
The Hannibal Lecter Syndrome
...Lecter won’t help Clarice unless she reveals something of herself to him. “
Quid pro quo, Clarice,” Lecter says. “I tell you things, you tell me things.” [If ]it’s wrong for a Democratic presidential candidate to take money from deep-pocketed American businesses, why is it okay for a
Republican Super PAC to be funded by such organizations? The only way to completely eliminate the influence of corporations in politics is through the kind of campaign finance reform that many Republicans and Democrats alike are loath to bring about. Politicians can’t have it both ways. Either big money is off-limits, or it’s not.
Beyond “All or None”
... there’s a big difference between running a political campaign that’s funded significantly by Fortune 500 companies and a former civil servant who gives talks for big bucks. In the former scenario, the potential for abuse is both significant and real. It is Congress that passes laws, and
it is members of Congress who, as a whole, stand to be unduly swayed by large financial contributions. Former elected officials who choose to run for president are much less likely to have the power to influence legislation because of speaking fees they were paid in the years before they ran for office. The U.S. President may be among the most powerful people in the world, but Congress is the nation’s most powerful entity.
The fracas about Clinton as a million-dollar speaker is merely name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and political maneuvering masquerading as legitimate criticism.
http://fortune.com/2016/01/23/hillary-clinton-speaking-fees-goldman-sachs/
Trump for Prison 2016
